Curriculum Committee Minutes
February 18, 2015
Committee members attending: Richard Anderson-Connolly, Rob Beezer, Luc Boisvert,
Nancy Bristow, Gwynne Brown, Jane Carlin, Jim Evans, Lisa Ferrari, Sara Freeman, Lisa
Johnson, Nick Kontogeorgopoulos, Alan Krause, Julia Looper, Janet Marcavage, Tim Pogar,
Elise Richman, Brett Rogers, Allison Simmons, Brad Tomhave
Also attending: Lisa Hutchinson, Dan Sherman, Peter Wimberger, Rachel DeMotts
1) Call to Order at 8:00 a.m.
2) Remarks from the Chair
Freeman will try to end the meeting at 8:50! Welcome to the visitors.
3) M/S/P to approve the minutes from the February 11, 2015 meeting with two edits.
4) Working Group Reports
WG 1: Bristow reported that they are in the midst of the Hispanic Studies review and have
begun Asian Studies. The WG will meet next week with representatives from Foreign Languages
to discuss the transfer credit question.
WG 2: Kontogeorgopoulos said that the WG will meet tomorrow. He then yielded the floor to
guests Wimberger, Sherman, and (arriving later) DeMotts, to answer questions about the ENVR
major proposal that arose following Kontogeorgopoulos’s presentation at the 2/11 CC meeting.
A member asked the guests whether they had considered making ENVR an emphasis rather than
creating a new thing, a linked major. Sherman replied that many alternatives had been
considered, but there were strong factors favoring the major, including the president’s
enthusiasm, the grant’s specific focus on developing a major, and the sense that Puget Sound is
at a disadvantage because it lacks the major in environmental studies that other schools offer.
The member agreed that “major” is a clearer concept than “emphasis,” but wondered if the
requirement of a hefty double major might continue to push students toward other schools.
Wimberger replied that environmental studies majors are typically structured in this way, as
supplemental to a more unitary area of expertise. He noted that Reed College, despite having a
“discipline-heavy” ethos, now has this kind of cross-disciplinary environmental studies major,
partly because their administration was gung ho about it.
Sherman added that two things in the process led to the proposal of a linked major. First, one
thing that was asked of EPDM-affiliated faculty was: what do we most like about the way things
are now? What don’t we want to lose if we make a curriculum change? At the top of list was that
students are trained deeply in some other area in addition to EPDM. That makes for a rich
experience for students in the classroom, as they come together collaboratively, drawing on their
diverse disciplinary backgrounds to problem-solve.
Second, Sherman said, when they did interviews with professionals in environmental fields and
asked them for their likely responses to job applicants with a variety of possible things on their
transcripts, they found that a stand-alone major in environmental studies was viewed as an
unknown quantity in terms of skills and background. An applicant with a traditional major as
well as an ENVR major would be understood as having a clear disciplinary background that they
had brought to bear in the environmental field.
A member expressed excitement about the proposal, but also concern that this is a small (8-unit)
major that runs shallow and broad; is it possible that our current resources don’t allow for an
authentic, substantial ENVR major yet? If the president and the grant point toward a strong
desire for an ENVR major, perhaps this is the moment to take what is a de facto emphasis—not
quite a major—and add enough resources that we can make it a real major?
Sherman responded that requiring only 8 units was not only a matter of resources, but also a
pedagogical choice, and one that would make it more feasible for students to complete the
second major. 8 units was determined to be optimal. Kontogeorgopoulos also noted, and
Sherman concurred, that the experiential requirement went beyond the 8 units of coursework.
Kontogeorgopoulos said that the WG had asked the proposers whether the ENVR major could be
fully implemented with existing resources, not wanting to approve something that couldn’t. The
proposers’ answer was that it would be a stretch, but can be implemented as a linked major.
Freeman asked for confirmation that the proposers view a linked major as the ideal format for the
ENVR major. Sherman confirmed this, noting that there three key reasons: (1) pedagogical
concerns, (2) a desire to minimize impact on other programs, and (3) capacity. He expressed
doubt that a school the size of Puget Sound could support a stand-alone ENVR major.
A member inquired about how the sufficiency of a student’s experiential component would be
determined. Sherman said that there would be a list of things that would definitely count, such as
summer research, study abroad programs, and the Southwest Semester program; students
wanting to select something not on the list would need to secure the director’s approval.
A member wondered whether the consideration of whether an ENVR major would be more
meaningful to prospective employers than an ENVR emphasis is a reasonable one; no one
counsels students double-majoring in philosophy and French to consider their future
employability. DeMotts noted that an additional factor is that the students themselves strongly
want ENVR to be a major, and have said so repeatedly over the years in exit surveys: they
majored in something as a second choice because they couldn’t major in ENVR. They are
passionate about environmental studies and want to demonstrate that more powerfully than a
mere minor does.
Freeman commented that it is the CC’s job, not the ENVR major proposers’, to work out all the
possible implications of the proposed major or the new category of linked major. She asked how
the proposers envisioned handling the challenge of communication and coordination with the
unlimited possible majors to which ENVR would be linked. Sherman responded that the current
ENVR minor can also be combined with any major, and that this is valued. He said that students
majoring in ENVR would have an advisor in that and their first major, so the advisors would
communicate. There would also be a curriculum guide for the ENVR major like there currently
is for other majors.
Wimberger said that the idea of having coordinated majors had been discussed, where the ENVR
major would be tailored according to a student’s primary major, but that was seen as overly
complicated and burdensome on other programs.
A member expressed support but asked whether environmental studies is ready, disciplinarily, to
be a major, if the content is too broad and shallow to stand alone. Wimberger answered that it is
a professionalized discipline, has peer-reviewed journals, etc. He also said that the ENVR major
has a focus on policy and decisionmaking that keeps it from being as amorphous as some
environmental studies majors. Nonetheless, it is a very broad field with no currency in a single
discipline, so by having a primary major, students gain disciplinary currency, and then EPDM
will help them to use those disciplinary skills effectively in the environmental arena, whether in
political science, by writing, as a scientist, etc.
A member asked whether students in the humanities might be implicitly discouraged from
majoring in ENVR by the policy focus, and by few humanities courses being ENVR electives.
Sherman noted that students with majors in humanities have done the ENVR minor. He said that
most of the faculty who teach in EPDM are not contractually obligated to do so, and offer their
courses out of goodwill (and that of their departments). These faculty are in the sciences and
social sciences. A humanities hire would strengthen that area of the ENVR major, and the
proposers would very much like that; currently resources are lower in that area.
DeMotts said that the emphasis on policy is seen in both 100- and 400-level EPDM courses, but
these are interdisciplinary and include readings in the humanities as well as natural and social
sciences. These courses deliberately cut across these boundaries, sometimes stretching the
faculty quite a bit! Students can choose a more humanities-oriented focus in their upper-division
electives. In between the 100 and 400 levels, two 200-level courses are policy specific, to help
make upper division courses with a policy focus accessible and welcoming to all students.
Wimberger added that classes at the 100, 200, and 400 levels include some ethics and some
environmental history. The limited number of humanities offerings has to do with the limited
offerings in the university, rather than a bias among the EPDM faculty. The courses that are
currently on the books are the ones that are in the elective pool for ENVR.
A member asked why the proposed ENVR major doesn’t allow double-counting, which would
make it accessible to more students. Sherman responded that people have strong opinions on
both sides of this question, but the decision for now is to allow no double-counting except the
Connections core; this is the way the current ENVR minor operates, and it seems to be working.
The double-counting issue could be revisited in the future if it seems to be causing problems.
In a follow-up comment, the member noted that the minor is only 5 units, whereas the ENVR
major would be 8. If a student’s first major were 10 units, this would bring the total major units
to 18, which may go against the liberal arts ethos.
Freeman thanked the visitors for their presence and helpful responses. Sherman said that the
proposal has been crafted very carefully over the last 3½ years, thanked the CC for its thoughtful
consideration, and expressed interest in members’ ideas.
Sherman, Wimberger, and DeMotts left. A straw poll reflected that most CC members did not
feel ready to vote on the ENVR major yet. Freeman encouraged members to communicate over
the next week and to consider the implications if a new category of major does get approved.
WG3: Looper reported that the WG met last Thursday and is continuing its work on the Math
Approaches core review and the SOAN review.
WG4: Rogers brought forward SSI2 180, The French Revolution (Diane Kelley) for approval as
an SSI. The course uses the Reacting to the Past role-playing pedagogy. The WG praised Kelly
for how well the course’s research project is set up and connected to the role-playing piece.
M/S/P to approve SSI2 180, The French Revolution, for SSI.
Rogers reported that the WG is continuing to make progress on the Theatre Arts and BMB
reviews. Those interested in BMB’s statement in response to the question the WG posed can
view it on SoundNet. In this afternoon’s meeting the WG will do more work on the Curriculum
Impact Statement, with the hope of bringing it to the CC at next week’s meeting.
5) Old Business, part 1
Freeman said that she has drafted an e-mail inviting heads of interdisciplinary programs to a
forum (discussed at 2/11/15 meeting). It is being reviewed by various members and will be sent
soon. Everyone on the CC will receive the e-mail and is invited to attend. In the e-mail, Freeman
explicitly states that the CC is working toward (1) revising the guidelines for interdisciplinary
emphases, (2) the creation of a document guiding new proposals, and (3) creating an interpretive
statement for WGs that are doing 5-year reviews for interdisciplinary programs.
6) New Business: Pilot Format for Advanced German Language Course
Ferrari said that German is looking to expand enrollment in upper-division courses, which would
allow those courses to continue to be offered, and thus permit the German major to continue.
Kent Hooper has proposed that advanced German classes could be combined with upper-division
Humanities courses, because there will be some content in common. All students would meet
together for 2 sessions a week, and then the students taking the course for German credit would
have an additional weekly lab-type meeting, not for content but for work on reading texts and
discussing them in German. This would allow course to be crosslisted as German/Humanities (or
possibly German/Something Else).
Martin Jackson and Ferrari have talked at length with Hooper about teaching schedule, possible
precedents, burden on students, burden on future teachers after Hooper leaves (not imminently).
Jackson and Ferrari have concluded that it would be all right to try this once as a pilot to see
whether it can work, in the interest of trying to support innovation that will allow the German
program to remain available to students. At this point there is not enough info to give this
proposal definitive approval. This one-time approval of a trial run can probably be done by
Ferrari without the CC’s approval, but Ferrari and Freeman agreed that it was best to run it by
the CC. If this becomes a lasting model, that would clearly be CC business. Ferrari invited
questions.
A member asked how the success or failure of the pilot would be assessed. Ferrari said this
would be a matter of talking to Hooper, looking at course evaluations, and perhaps using a
specially-generated additional evaluation form for this particular class. The member suggested
that it would also be useful to interview the students directly.
There was a question about whether a single weekly German-language session was sufficient for
an upper-division German class. The answer given was that because this would be a literature
course and not specifically a language instruction course, this was acceptable.
Freeman said that the CC could return to this at next week’s meeting.
7) Old Business, part 2: Discussion of 9 unit limit and evaluating department reviews
There was broad consensus that 30 seconds was not quite enough time. Freeman apologized to
WG4 for the ongoing postponement of a discussion relevant to its work.
8) M/S/P to adjourn at 8:50.
Submitted by Gwynne Brown